nvdaily.com link to home page

Traffic | Weather | Mobile Edition
Archives | Subscribe

Opinion arrow Letters to the Editor

| 0 | 85 Comments

Letter to the Editor: The difference between liberals and conservatives


Editor:

Bob Lowerre's Reader Commentary in the Monday, Aug. 6 Northern Virginia Daily illustrates the basic difference between liberals and conservatives.

Liberals like Mr. Lowerre believe in the Nannie State. They want to take money from people who have worked for it and give it to people who have not. They are of the opinion that society should "give the unfortunate fellow a fish."

Conservatives believe in self reliance and creating jobs so that everyone has an opportunity to earn money. They are of the opinion that society should "teach the unfortunate fellow how to fish."

Mr. Lowerre is unhappy with U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), but concedes that most of his constituents agree with the congressman. To prove the congressman's constituents are uninformed, Mr. Lowerre trots out the same tired, lame smoke and mirrors that Obama supporters have used for over a year to try and excuse the president's miserable record of failures.

Then, Mr. Lowerre announces that Rep. Goodlatte has a worthy opponent. Worthy, I'm sure, because he is a liberal; certainly not because of his weak resume that Mr. Lowerre presented. I'm sure the fellow is a decent man, but why would we want to vote for someone with no experience who will need on-the-job training from the likes of Nancy Pelosi?

Rep. Goodlatte has always voted conservative values, has seniority on important committees, and gives personal attention to constituent problems. Vote for Bob.

Fred Hughes, Woodstock

85 Comments



Mr. Hughes says Bob Lowere trots out the same tired smoke and mirrors arguments when he just above uses characterizations like Nannie State. You are guilty of the same bluster you accuse Mr. Lowery of. At least Bob came up with some facts to support his letter.

Conservatives believe....

Adam Brandon, spokesman for FreedomWorks, which has been organizing tea-party activists and includes Mr. Armey* as chairman, says the group gives Mr. Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called "Rules for Patriots" is distributed to its entire network.

The rules:

1. Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the expertise of your people.
3. Whenever possible go outside the expertise of your enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long is a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on. Never let up.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the threat itself.’
10. If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.
11. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
12. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.

* "Dick" Armey, a former U.S. Representative from Texas' 26th congressional district (1985–2003) and House Majority Leader (1995–2003). He was one of the engineers of the "Republican Revolution" of the 1990s, in which Republicans were elected to majorities of both houses of Congress for the first time in four decades. Armey was one of the chief authors of the Contract with America. Armey is also an author and former economics professor. After his congressional career, he worked as a consultant, advisor, and lobbyist.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/22/us-healthcare-bill-rest-of-world-obama

Ciccina
12 August 2009 8:31PM
I hope I can correct a misconception I see reflected in many comments here and at the Guardian's related articles.

Yes, the British system is superior to the American system in every respect. But that is irrelevant to the debate in the U.S.

Yes, most Americans are woefully misinformed about the NHS and other healthcare systems. That too is irrelevant.

The conflict in the U.S. over health care reform has nothing to do with the specifics of any proposal or advertising campaign, for or against. Rather, it is a conflict over fundamental values.

Many Americans believe that one of the uses of government (and quasi-governmental entities) is to manage things so that every citizen can live with a basic measure of human dignity - food, clothing, shelter, health care, education. (JM comment: Believe they are called "liberals.")l

And many Americans do not. What you are observing is the mobilization of those Americans who believe that their money should only be spent on things that directly help themselves. They are willing to pay very low taxes for police, firefighters, the military - services they feel they need to protect themselves and their possessions. They are not willing to pay taxes to help someone else -- because its *their* money. They hate that the government spends *their* money on programs they don't use, and the notion of expanding government's role in spending *their* money on other people infuriates them.

This is the "socialism" they rail against. They know that other Americans get sick and die from lack of coverage. They may even feel bad for those people. But they do not see what any of that has to do with them. In their opinion, these people die not because the system is fatally flawed, but because these people failed -- personally failed -- to earn enough money to pay their own way through life. The system, with its inefficiencies and sick logic, is not to blame; the fault lies with the individual.

You may have noticed that the anti-reform contingent is wholly negative about government-run programs like Medicaid (for the very poor), Medicare (for the elderly and disabled), and VA services (veterans), despite evidence that they are largely successful. That's because successful health outcomes (in the US, in the UK, in France, wherever) are not germane to their concerns. They are opposed, in principle, to the government using their tax dollars on anyone -- be they indigent, elderly, disabled, or a wounded veteran -- other than themselves. In their eyes, any such program - and the government that administers it -- is immoral.

To be blunt: a great many of my fellow countrymen believe that if you are not contributing to the growth of the economy, you don't deserve to live. If you die because you don't have enough money to pay for treatment, its your own fault; you should have earned more money. And under no circumstances, no matter how pitiful, should the government use *their* money to help another citizen.

This is the dark side of the so-called pioneer mentality. Its every man for himself.

Regardless, those who are in favor of reform with continue to assail these people with facts, call them stupid when they don't change their minds, and attack individuals and groups for misinforming them. Granted, many of these people are very stupid, and woefully misinformed, but that's beside the point. At a base level, they have fundamentally different social values. And no one is talking about that.

mumble1980
13 August 2009 1:40PM
Ciccina .....
........
We desperately want to believe that America will remain what we hoped it had reverted to when Obama came to power - a democratic country steered by a rational individual, with the authority and consideration to move amongst the nations of the world and be trusted to act in it and it's allies best interests based on rationally considered information. The relevance of this debate, and the reason it strikes such a chord with me, is the facile nature of the rhetoric undermines the US's authority - it's a bit humiliating, to be frank. I for one will be watching to see if Obama will finally find a way to expose what is either a franky criminal level of political irresponsibility on the part of the Right at best, or a dementedly ruthless stream of intended deceit on their part.

I wonder what it is like to sit in a nation the US is not allied with, and watch the gradual build up of ridiculous rhetoric and, frankly, b*llshit, build until there is an almost unstoppable momentum towards direct conflict, be it military or diplomatic.

Maybe I'm being wound up by the press, but it scares the hell out of me.

Mackie, you're comments are becoming just a little bit redundant wouldn't you think? Try some new thoughts.

Hey TeaTime, at least she has THOUGHTS.

What do you have to offer here?

What a refreshing voice you are, Ms. Mackie. I'm surprised the name calling hasn't started yet. That's usually how someone who can't obviously contribute to the discussion handles these sites.

Name calling and baloney! The Republican party depends on ignorance of the masses. They try to convince people that it's them against the big bad Liberals and all those takers of the system (so-called).

The corporate take over of this country is serious and yes, it's getting very scary! What a "ship of fools" and we will all be tossed overboard when it sinks!

This country is not working for you or me, the average American. The Republican party cares about power and control: money is the name of the game. Get Romney in office and you will finally know who he is.

I agree with you Diana, Jane not only gives thoughts, but sources as well, apparently Tea Time doesn't take the time to read these sources, just offers his opinion based on what he's heard on "Faux News".

At what point are we as a nation going to wake up and realize that anyone with a -R or a -D after their name are players on the same team who are making this country work for their friends and paid business associates and no one else?

No Republican or Democrat really cares about any normal citizen - the last several years have proved the point over and over again. Both parties only try to divide us all on issues that tug on ideological heart strings but have no real impact on our lives, our jobs or our futures.

Why is unemployment so high? Because it's more profitable this way.

Why are wages near historical lows? Because it's more profitable this way.

Why are large corporations not held responsible for any of their actions no matter how egregious they are? Because it's more profitable this way.

Why are the rich getting tax cuts while poor and middle class Americans are left paying for it? Because it's more profitable that way.

As long as the Republicans and the Democrats continue to compartmentalize citizens into little ideological boxes and play us against each other (read how many middle school insults are thrown around just in the comments here, let alone anywhere else on the internet just because someone disagrees with someone else), nothing will change - it doesn’t have to.

We can no longer peacefully disagree with each other - we can seemingly no longer respect someone else’s views. We act in a way that if people are wrong, and therefore inferior, and that concept alone is a TERRIBLE path for a COUNTRY to take.


We're keeping ourselves divided against the monstrosity that is a two party system that represents no one.

Diane and Skidplate, Thanks for the support. I only focus on individuals who give us a clue they understand the topics being addressed.


"Tell me to what you pay attention and I will tell you who you are." ~ Jose Ortega Y Gasset

"Tell me if you believe in Obama and I will tell what you are."~TeaTime

TeaTime, I BELIEVE Obama can do better and if he can get a Congress that works with him on behalf of the American people, he might succeed in his second term.

I've SEEN what the Republicans can do (George W. Bush comes to mind) and I've know the mess he left behind. Romney is merely more of the same.

Maybe you had better lay off the tea. . . Try some veno, good for the heart and soul. :)

Nope Diana, You're still wrong. I suggest reading Anteres comment above. Real good stuff. Light years from the brainwashing crap from your cohorts.

What is wrong, teatime, is what Jane Mackie points out hard for you to take and the facts hard to accept? Does the truth hurt and does perhaps educating yourself and looking at something from a different perspective prove too challenging?

Jane, as someone else has pointed out, not only states facts, but goes to the trouble to provide the sources she has used to back up what she has said. She certainly elevates the conversation and provides much thought and reflection for those who choose to not have closed minds.

Keep up what you are doing, Jane, as there are people out here who do appreciate you and others who shine the light on subjects that others wish to keep in the dark.

It depends what you considered facts song98. I don't believe commie facts.

Anteres does raise good points and Mitt Romney is more of the same. He touts his "business experience" as what the country needs and wants, his job was making money for investors not creating jobs for people and he appears to have been pretty good at it.

Why are the Koch brothers, Adelson and other multi-billionaires pouring so much money into the superpacs to defeat Obama, they know they will pay a slightly higher tax rate under the Obama administration and pay even less than they are now with a Romney administration. Europe is suffering under austerity measures and every economist in the world is telling them "you're going the wrong direction, invest in your country". Why should multi-billion dollar corporations get subsidies for being profitable?

I (my family) have lost thousands of dollars over the last few years but I'm not blaming Obama, I blame the previous administration for two unfunded wars and an unfunded prescription drug plan (that was badly needed), you have to pay sooner or later, you pay your bills don't you?

Why is the US the only industrialized nation without a national health plan, I have a health plan, have had one since I left the service in 1971. I've used it and plan on using Medicare in the not too distant future along with supplement insurance. I paid into social security and am planning on collecting as much of it as I can before I cease to breathe.

I'll be the first to admit I've been fortunate, I did make some wise choices early in life and collected the benefits of doing so but becasue I'm better off than a lot of people I'm not going to begrudge the less fortunate a better life even if it means I help pay for it.

I've seen poverty, never experienced it, but seen it and it's not pretty.

Read Anteres comments again and think about them, line by line, you will find they refute most of what you claim.

Am I wrong about this one TeaTime...I just witnessed Mitt Romney introduce Paul Ryan as "the next PRESIDENT of the United States"! He then came back to the podium before Paul Ryan spoke and said "I have been known to make a mistake or two. I meant the next VICE president of the United States!" Paul Ryan's BIG moment and it was blundered by the real candidate for President, Mitt himself! This was no edited version of what he said, it was LIVE on TV!!

Seems about every time ol' Mitt opens his mouth he sticks his foot in! Give Mitt an inch and he will self destruct all by himself!

It looks like you have a pretty good grasp on the problem with the country Skidplate, but I think we've reached an impasse on how and who is to solve it.

Yea Tstar, I saw that boo-boo. Wasn't that a hoot. I am glad you enjoyed it. But just remember, what goes around comes around.

Fine, teaTime, say no more. From your earlier response to me saying " I don't believe in commie facts", I can see you have your mind made up and appear to have no desire to have an open mind when reading what Jane and others have posted that differs from your beliefs and opinions. But, that is your right and your decision.

In spite of what you might think, Jane's sources are credible and many times from sources like factcheck.org which is truly non-partisan and is not "for Democrats" and not "for Republicans" but for the truth.

I don't need to defend Jane as she has proven to be intelligent and competent and can handle herself quite well. But there are many others, including me, on here who appreciate her contributions to the conversation even if you and a few others don't.

I also have to give Jane credit in that even when there have been those who disagree with what she has written have come back at her with "snarky" comments, she manages to respond back to them without getting nasty. And that is a very hard thing to do!

Ultimately THE difference between liberals and conservatives is heart.

Its our job as voters to choose the candidates that are working towards the health and benefits of our society as a WHOLE. To continually find the compromise that benefits EVERY citizen and keeps us moving forward.

Do we as parents feed, educate, care for one child while starving the other so that one day he "might" help the one we neglected? No, and neither should our government. Much like parents have primary control over their children's outcomes, how our government handles its business effects the outcome of its citizens.

I know Jane can fight her own battles Song98. It's only natural you would defend her, because you both have the same agenda. There is no doubt Jane as a very good fact-finder, but Facts are only as reliable as the fact-finder's intentions.

Hindsight is 20/20. Research. Plan. Execute. Evaluate. This makes your forward vision 20/20. ~ Unknown

Again, appreciate the support; however, please don't waste your time defending my posts to people who have closed minds. It will accomplish nothing. If we can capture the attention of the 'independent' thinker it will accomplish everything.

I am getting tired of being nice to you bunch of snakes in the grass. Why do you talk around in circles like you are a bunch of know-it-alls, and talking down to anyone that disagrees with you. Fact-checking as if it is such a big deal when the only facts you want are the ones that suit your purposes like any good political hack.
Talk about capturing independent thinkers Jane. What kind of double talk is that? Some kind of liberal brainwashing of the uninformed? I guess every scheme has it's tactics.

Facts are indeed in the eye of the beholder.
To use something more benign, there are some of us that walk into the car dealership and let the salesman tell us all about the vehicles they have, then then some of us go to Car and Driver's website and read the comparison reports, walk into the dealer and tell the salesman which car we want and how much we are willing to pay for it.

Especially in politics, "I" want the comparison report. You can stand there and yell till you are blue in the face that Obama is a Kenyan, Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Muslim that spent 20 years in a racist christian church.......and OMG he killed your darn dog(you even wrote a country song about it). I need to vote for Romney because he is the only man who will save America!

Yet offer me ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to support anything you just said, I'm not listening.
When you tell me Romney is more qualified because he has private sector experience, BUT we aren't supposed to discuss it, I'm not listening.
When you tell me Romney can fix our tax system, BUT I'm not allowed to see his taxes, I'm not listening.
When you say "Obama is just a spend spend spender" and offer me NOTHING, while someone else can say, no he isn't and I can show you, here:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/23/facebook-posts/viral-facebook-post-says-barack-obama-has-lowest-s/

Guess what?? I'm not listening to you.

The hardest thing about searching for the truth...Is that sometimes you find it. ~ Unknown

Good job, Katybug.


"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

Martin Luther King Jr.

Jane the last refuge for people who lose arguments is name calling.

"Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn"

Benjamine Franklin

You want to use auto analogies Kadybug. How about this one. If your car was broke would you keep taking it back to the same mechanic if he charges you high rates for his services and never completely fixes it? This national automobile has had a new paint job with no primer, overhauled with old parts and tune up with an inexperienced technician for over the past three and half years and Obama can't even get it out from under the shade tree.

Once upon a time in a land now engulfed in selfishness, Republicans were concerned about humanity in the U.S. In 1970 President Richard passed Title X which provided comprehensive family planning and preventive health services to low-income and uninsured individuals at reduced or no cost.

“We need to take sensationalism out of this topic,” he said. “If family planning is anything, it is a public health matter.”
The Republican was George H.W. Bush, then a Texas congressman, arguing for the creation of Title X in 1969. But that was four decades — and a different Republican Party — ago.

In my opinion Mr Hugh's original comment displays a completely simplistic world-view, is utterly inane and largely feeble-minded. THIS lack of nuance and inability (or unwillingness) to think critically is why Bobby Goodlatte keeps going back to Washington DC to suck up tax-payer money while doing the bidding for the well-to-do.

Simply silly. ROTFLMAO

I seen a poster that talks about just that, it said:
After
40 years of income taxes for the rich
30 years of income concentration at the top
30 years of middle class wages in decline
20 years of Wall Street deregulation that tanked the economy
10 years of 2 wars paid with debt

Do we need to give more tax cuts to the rich, further deregulate Wall Street, and cut middle class programs to pay off the debt?

or

Do we need to invest in the middle class, re-regulate Wall Street and tax the rich more to pay off the debt?


*So to answer you, you are actually correct in part, the GOP policies (mechanic) has left the car broken down for a long time. I already found a new mechanic and while the engine isn't purring just like brand new yet....I'm at least able to drive it, which is a whole lot better than the proven failures of the previous mechanics.

*40 years of income tax *cuts* for the rich

Oh brother! Snakes in the grass?!!!! Can't you give us some facts to support your "fantasy"?

It does take a bit of work to understand truth from empty rhetoric. At the very least, try to listen to something other than Fox News.

Will you be watching the Democratic Convention? I'll bet you won't. I KNOW how I will vote, but I'll watch both conventions anyway.

Vote the way you want but for heaven's sake, move beyond the brainwashing. Don't be totally afraid of listening to another opinion.

Oops...President Richard passed - Probably should have been a Nixon in there somewhere!

Diane,

You might enjoy a magazine "The Week" if you aren't already receiving it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/business/media/14magazine.html?pagewanted=all

Too bad we only remember Nixon for Watergate now, although many say he was very smart (perhaps that goes with the territory). I just do caricatures of my enemies and file them under "Jack A---- I've known". ; ]

I'll check out "The Week" - thanks.

Yea katybug, you're right our national jalopy has been through a lot of bad mechanics in the past. I think it's time for the people to bypass the garage and take it straight back to the factory. I know that will never happen any time soon, so I guess we're stuck with the mechanics we have. Good luck with yours.

I don't usually waste my time on the likes of people such as Ann Coulter, but this is just TOO funny!


“He’s trying to get the stupid single women voter, which is the Democratic Party base,” Coulter repeated. “And I would just say to stupid single women voters, your husband will not be able to pay you child support if Obamacare goes through and Obama is re-elected. You are talking about the total destruction of wealth. It is the end of America as we know it.”

Tea, I don't want to be "right". Whether you understand that or not. I used to frequent Yahoo Answers, the politics section. I am a Factor fan (yes, really). Hannity follows the 11 pm Factor, and occasionally if I was caught up I don't get the channel changed and catch a bit of Hannity. Anyhow, that particular night Hannity was showing the Biden video that was big news at the time of Biden saying when there is less police presence, there are more violent crimes such as rape and murder, THEN Hannity says "So what Biden means is, if we don't pass this bill there is going to be rapes and murders". And literally within seconds people were posting questions along the lines of Biden is threatening rape and murder to get a bill passed. That was the end of my yahoo answers experience. I know they just sat there and watched the exact same thing I did, they saw the exact same video of what the VP said, and rolled with Hannity was saying and not with what Biden actually said.
More recently Obama gave a speech talking about how being successful in this country takes individual hard work as well as the helping hand of the various systems we have in place. But all Republicans are saying is "Obama said you didn't build that".

I don't want to be right. I want you and every other voter to know walking into the booth why they are voting for their choice. I want voters to take a few minutes and research.
I don't want someone to not vote for Obama because Fox news told them Obama said you didn't build that. I want them to find out exactly what he said and decide for themselves what he meant in whole.
I want people to find their own "facts", and look past their own front porch to not what is necessarily good for their own agenda, but what is good for the whole. Because in this, we are a team. R, D, I, doesn't matter, we are going to succeed or fail together, like it or not. If we disagree that's okay, but at least bring something to the table to disagree about. Don't just say "trickle-down" works, SHOW ME how. (respectfully)
That's not talking down to anyone. Its being smart enough to know just because a politician said it, or a tv/radio talking head paraphrased and went on a rant about it, doesn't make it true or viable.

Katybug wrote: "...Obama gave a speech talking about how being successful in this country takes individual hard work as well as the helping hand of the various systems...Obama said if you start a business 'you didn't do that on your own'."

Bill Bain, founder of Bain & Company, offered Romney the chance to head a new venture (Remember Obama said if you start a business "you didn't do that on your own"?);

Romney and his partners spent a year raising the $37 million in funds needed to start the new operation (Remember Obama said if you start a business "you didn't do that on your own''?);

Early investors included members of elite Salvadoran families; they and other wealthy Latin Americans invested $9 million primarily through offshore companies registered in Panama (Remember Obama said if you start a business "you didn't do that on your own"?).

I don't see anything so profound about the Obama statement if you know who you are dealing with. That is typical of what any RED blooded socialist would say. You can spin it anyway you want to protect him, but remember, you can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy.

Thank you in advance for your comments.

I intended it as a example of paraphrasing and using a small sentence to turn it into something that is different. The theoretical ant hill into a mountain. I personally don't find what he said in whole as to be profound as much as common sense. He was pointing out that no-one with maybe the exception of God depending on your beliefs accomplishes anything completely and totally on their own. Somewhere along the way there is help. Comedy aside, Jon Stewart aired some footage of Romney giving almost the same speech to an Ohio town hall meeting (I believe that was the location). I don't believe it to be socialist either. But that how right-wing media has portrayed it. By getting people all riled up, you ignore that Romney has no clear message, has a shady business background, shady tax records...You cant have the base questioning their own candidate, you need them pissed off at a strawman argument so they don't pay attention.

The left does this too at times. Its the game. Continuing to talk about it and rant about it, is keeping the strawman alive and attention diverted.
If we are busy arguing about something completely fictional, then we cant talk about the Tax Policy Center's analysis of Romney's tax plan. I know he says now they are biased, but remember he did also say they were impartial and praised them when they analyzed Santorum.

“Many Americans believe that one of the uses of government (and quasi-governmental entities) is to manage things so that every citizen can live with a basic measure of human dignity - food, clothing, shelter, health care, education. (JM comment: Believe they are called "liberals.")l – Jane Mackie

“But if taxes are to be imposed for relief, who is the judge of what is possible or beneficial? It must be either the producers, the needy, or some third group. To say it shall be all three together is no answer; the verdict must swing upon majority or plurality drawn from one or other group. Are the needy to vote themselves whatever they want? Are the humanitarians, the third group, to vote themselves control of both the producers and the needy? (That is what they have done.)” Isabel Paterson - The Humanitarian with the Guillotine

Talk about keeping the straw man alive. You're the one that brought it up in the beginning. Anyway, if the statement is just common sense, why would he say it? The motive...hmm?

Another difference between liberals and conservatives. Paul Ryan, VP want to be and throw them under the bus extraordinaire would like to privatize social security. Ultimately making the values worth dependent on the rise and fall of the stock market.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/11/paul-ryans-non-budget-policy-record-in-one-post/
Ryan’s Social Security privatization proposal, the Social Security Personal Savings Guarantee and Prosperity Act of 2005, which he sponsored along with then-Sen. John Sununu (whose father has been a prominent Romney surrogate), would have allowed workers to funnel an average of 6.4 percent of their 12.4 percent payroll-tax contribution to a private account. Lower-income workers would be able to divert more of their wages, as the plan allows 10 percent of income up to $10,000 and 5 percent of income up to the payroll tax cap to be diverted. By default, the private account would be invested in a portfolio set by the Social Security Administration of 65 percent stocks and 35 percent bonds. Workers could choose an 80/20 stock-bond portfolio, or a 50-50 portfolio, but would not be able to pick individual stocks or bonds. At retirement, all participants in the plan would be required to buy an annuity.
The Social Security Administration concluded that the Ryan-Sununu plan would require huge increases in general budget revenue to make up the shortfall left in payroll tax revenue. Specifically, revenue would have to increase by 1.5 percent of GDP every year, an analysis by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities found, or about $225 billion at current GDP. That’s a big honking tax hike. What’s more, under the plan, investments in the stock and bond markets would skyrocket such that by 2050, every single stock or bond in the United States would be owned by a Social Security account. This would mean that the portfolio managers at the Social Security Administration would more or less control the entire means of production in the United States.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/RyanSununu_20050420.html

The difference? Paul Ryan sent himself to college off Social Security benefits. Liberals are usually more thankful of the help they had along the way, and realize that help is part of how they became who they are. Conservatives like to pretend they were the proverbial superman and work to ensure others don't get the same help that benefited them.

I'mdebtfree, your quote from Isabel Paterson --"The Humanitarian With A Guillotine" made me try to find something about her since I was not familar with the name and I found that Isabel Paterson has been called "-----earliest progenitor of libertarianism as we know it today". As most people know, Libertarians believe in small government with minimum rules, and regulations and believe in privatizing just about everything. According to wisegeek.com, "libertarians believe, to a certain extent, that a society based on 'survival of the fittest' would be a better place to live". I guess that is the same as what I heard during the Republican Primary from one of the Republicans something like "if you don't want to work, you don't get to eat". Of course, they don't answer the question, what of those who, for any number of good reasons, CAN'T work for their food.

To quote what Jane Mackie had written, "----to manage things so that every citizen can live with a basic measure of human dignity---food, clothing, shelter, health care, education". I know the right wing loves to claim that those of us who want to provide those things is advocating for a "nanny state" which of course is hyperbole and of course incorrect.

Having made numerous trips (work related) to a third world country from the early to mid 1990's and seeing in that country the results of years and years of a society of "survival of the fittest" with basically no kind of social safety-net, truly opened my eyes. There were a few very, very wealthy at the top who lived very well and who controlled the politics of the country, hardly any middle class, and the majority of the people were the working, lower-than-dirt poor, living in unspeakable conditions, and (hard as this is to imagine) many of them LIVING at the city dump and picking through the garbage daily for subsistence.

Up until that time, I had not been out of the U.S. before and I could not believe what I was seeing. Corny as it sounds, when I got back to the U.S. after that first trip, I felt like I wanted to kiss the ground upon entering our country----a country that became great and stands out because of it's strong middle class and it's citizens who cared enough for those less fortunate to provide with tax dollars, social programs to keep it's poorest of families from being forced into living in mile after mile after mile of tar paper shacks and city dump. Of course, we all agree that people who can work, should work and not be given a hand-out but the problem is today's right-wingers are trying to say "anyone who needs help is just looking for a hand-out." Absolutely wrong.

No one is talking about "nanny state"----the issue is do we go the way of these third world countries, or do we----those of us who have been blessed and are able to do it-----help others to have a basic measure of human dignity. I believe the American people who are a kind and caring group, would not want the kind of country as seen in these third world countries.

Another difference between Liberals and Conservatives

Go to a Biden townhall and ask him about jobs, you get some type of response at least

Go to a Ryan townhall and ask about jobs, you get kicked out and/or arrested

Google it.

Even a hyperbole response is better than getting arrested for asking questions our elected officials would rather avoid.

Isabel Paterson, known as one of mothers of American libertarianism, opposed most of the economic program known as the New Deal, which American president Franklin D. Roosevelt put into effect during the Great Depression. She advocated less government involvement in both social and fiscal issues. Paterson declined to enroll in Social Security and kept her Social Security card in an envelope with words "'Social Security' Swindle" written on it. (wikipedia) And what was her net worth? Not my role model!!!! Know anyone in social security? Believe they shouldn't have it?

A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state. ~Isabel Paterson

You know, Debt, I love listening to people who have never had children be 'authorities' as how to raise them and their needs. Reminds me of Limbaugh (married four times, no children, no sisters) talking about women's issues.

Life should consist in at least 50 percent pure waste of time, and the rest in doing what you please. ~ isabel Peterson (aka wealthy?)

AND, Katybug...

Ryan has really worked hard for the good people of Wisconsin; in 13 years, he passed two bills for his home state.

2000 -- Passed a bill to have the local post office renamed; the post office on 1818 Milton Ave. in Janesville, Wis., is now known as "Les Aspin Post Office Building."

2008 --Passed a bill to change the way arrows (as in bows and arrows) are hit with an excise tax. Specifically, his bill amended the Internal Revenue Code to impose a 39-cent tax per arrow shaft, instead of a 12.4 percent tax on the sales price. The bill also "includes points suitable for use with arrows in the 11 percent excise tax on arrow parts and accessories."

Jane, you missed this one. “Unorganized private giving is random and sporadic; it has never been able to prevent suffering completely. But neither does it perpetuate the dependence of its beneficiaries.” Isabel Paterson


“You know, Debt, I love listening to people who have never had children be 'authorities' as how to raise them and their needs. Reminds me of Limbaugh (married four times, no children, no sisters) talking about women's issues.” Jane

Jane – What has this got to do with anything I posted? You had to bring up Limbaugh for what reason?

Kinda reminds me of Kathleen Sebelius, the U.S. Secreatry of Health and Human Services, a politician determining the policies in Obamacare.
Wow! With Obamacare, Kathleen Sebelius is going to be VERY busy! The phrase “secretary shall” appears 1,051 times in obamacare.

Didn't miss it, Debt, ignored it. I cannot argue that either of those statements are false, but the reality is 'random and sporadic' would have many more people living under bridges and out of carts in the US. So the only recourse is government assistant with the goal to move people into a better life though education and work programs at the state and national level.

When I was in Burma, I saw old women carrying rocks in a basket on their heads to sites where roads were being built. They were all bent over and looked pathetic; would you like to be one of them?

When I was in the Philippines, children used to approach my car begging for money. One day a young boy, couldn't have been more than 12, approached with a baby in his arms. The baby obviously had, at some point, its arm AND leg broken and never received medical attention. I rolled down my window and asked the boy to give the baby to me, he ran away,

Is this what you want to see our country become?

So you’re saying that without government hand-outs we would become a third world country?

Debt asked: "Jane – What has this got to do with anything I posted? You had to bring up Limbaugh for what reason?"

You were quoting Isabel Paterson thus my quote re her take on education in this country when she has never had any children in the educational system which reminded me of Limbaugh given female guidance to his audience when, to repeat, four marriages, no children, no sisters, etc. Just an analogy. And, please correct me if I am mistaken, but that is why you threw out Sebelius...an analogy, right?

Debt: "Kathleen Sebelius is going to be VERY busy! The phrase “secretary shall” appears 1,051 times in obamacare."

I will take your word as to the number of times (1,052) a word or words appear in the ACA as stats such as that have little to no import. I am certain that Sebelius is very capable of delegating to her staff.

I really admire Sebelius because when she ran for Kansas Insurance Commissioner she refused to take campaign contributions from the insurance industry, and she blocked the proposed merger of two large insurance companies. In 2001 Sebelius was named as one of Governing Magazine's Public Officials of the Year while she was serving as Kansas Insurance Commissioner. The Cato Institute does not care for her so that elevates my respect for her EVEN more. She is a woman of principle. Unlike And Ryan who, along with Isabel Paterson, was one of the 'founding mothers of American libertarianism' who preached all her life against government programs and wound up taking Medicare.

Debt wrote: So you’re saying that without government hand-outs we would become a third world country?

Debt, Have you every fallen off a bicycle and someone walked over and helped you up or have you ever fallen down and dropped what you were carrying and someone walked over to assist you? What is your interpretation of "government of the people, by the people, for the people"?

A QUICK TEST
By Nicholas Nolan
RAW STORY COLUMNIST

In the wake of the polarization of the country, here is a little something to help you decide who you are and whom you are with.

YOU KNOW YOU'RE LIBERAL:

1. If you like Al Franken, Michael Moore, Eric Alterman and, of course, Paul Krugman.
2. If you care about things like people's health care and whether they have insurance to cover it.
3. If it does not bother you if people of the same sex choose to get married or have a civil union — hey, it's none of our business.
4. If you are bothered by the fact that we have uncovered no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
5. If you hate the Patriot Act because it violates the Constitution of the United States of America.
6. If you like it when Americans have jobs.
7. If you are bothered by Bush’s tax cut for the wealthy.
8. If you are troubled by the war in Iraq because more than 500 troops have died and huge contributors to the Bush-Cheney campaign have gotten huge contracts in Iraq (Halliburton, for example).
9. If you believe a woman's body is hers and she should be able to decide what happens to it.
10. If you don't always agree with the other side, but you hear the argument and then decide what's right and what's wrong.
11. If you care about other people in the country even if they can't help you.
12. If you're wrong and you can correct yourself.

YOU KNOW YOU'RE CONSERVATIVE:

1. If you worship Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Joseph McCarthy and, of course, Sean Hannity.
2. If you watch Fox News — "We Report, We Decide."
3. If you think the United States went to war because there was a link between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein.
4. If you think the government should be able to define what marriage is. Why should gays and lesbians have that right? They only live here.
5. If you support the Medicare bill that gave big pharmaceutical companies no-bid contracts (again, most were Bush-Cheney contributors).
6. If you hate Howard Dean because he knows when you are wrong and actually says something about it.
7. If someone messes with us — "Nuke'em."
8. If things like health care and the welfare of others are not high on your agenda.
9. If you think Canada is weird because they have universal healthcare.
10. If you think liberals are communists.
11. If you think it is OK during the "liberation of the Iraqi people" if a few thousand innocent Iraqis die.
12. If you have tunnel vision.

LOL, what if you are on both lists?

Ok Jane, I understand you have your mind completely made up when you state “The Cato Institute does not care for her so that elevates my respect for her EVEN more” I’m glad you have so much trust in Sebelius and her ability to make all the decisions entrusted to her in Obamacare. A person who is a politician and has no medical experience but she was director of the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association (1977–1987). How will you feel Jane, when a new administration is elected and a Cato Institute approved Secretary of Health and Human Services is appointed and now has to make the decisions under Obamacare? Will you still like how much power one unelected official has? Will you still trust that persons’ ability to delegate to their staff?

LOL, Katybug I too find myself on both sides of the list. Jane, however, has this idea that if you are not for government spending to help people, you don’t want to help and that you are greedy and selfish. That could not be further from the truth. I want and do try to help, I want to see everyone succeed. I guess her arguments prove what was first stated in the letter to the editor –“ Liberals like Mr. Lowerre believe in the Nannie State. They want to take money from people who have worked for it and give it to people who have not. They are of the opinion that society should "give the unfortunate fellow a fish." Conservatives believe in self reliance and creating jobs so that everyone has an opportunity to earn money. They are of the opinion that society should "teach the unfortunate fellow how to fish."

Debt: "Ok Jane, I understand you have your mind completely made up when you state “The Cato Institute..."

You are 100% correct, I DO NOT like the Cato Institute; one of the two founders of CATO is Charles Koch. Charles and David of Koch Industries, two of the leading and most influential financiers of anti-regulation and right-wing ideology in the United States, have expended much 'political influence' money (esp anti EPA*) to the members who now hold prime seats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. David is the Chairman of Americans for Prosperity (APF). In an August 30, 2010, article in The New Yorker, Jane Mayer said that the billionaire brothers are providing financial and organizational support to the Tea Party movement through Americans for Prosperity. She claims that the Koch brothers' political involvement with the Tea Party has been so secretive that she labels it "covert". Former ambassador Christopher Meyer writes in the Daily Mail that the Tea Party movement is a mix of "grassroots populism, professional conservative politics, and big money", the last supplied in part by Charles and David Koch.

David Koch was the Libertarian Party's vice-presidential candidate in the 1980 presidential election. The Clark–Koch ticket promising to abolish Social Security, the Federal Reserve Board, welfare, minimum-wage laws, corporate taxes, all price supports and subsidies for agriculture and business, and U.S. Federal agencies including the SEC, EPA, ICC, FTC, OSHA, FBI, CIA, and DOE. The ticket proposed legalization of prostitution, recreational drugs, and suicide. The ticket received 921,128 votes, 1.06% of the total nationwide vote.

Koch companies had traded and worked extensively with IRAN over a ten year period. A Bloomberg Markets investigation has found that Koch Industries has sold millions of dollars of petrochemical equipment to Iran, a country the U.S. identifies as a sponsor of global terrorism. Interesting, huh? In fact, a purchase order for refining equipment at the plant was sent the day after President George W. Bush outlined the concept of an "axis of evil" in his 2003 State of the Union address, where he articulated his view that Iran was a direct threat to the United States and specifically advocated for economic sanctions. What's your thoughts about that, Debt?


* Environmental and safety record - From 1999 to 2003, Koch Industries was assessed more than $400 million in fines, penalties and judgments.

--Koch Industries was fined $35 million for 300 alleged pipeline spills across six states from 1990 to 1997, adding up to 3 million US gallons (11,000 m3) of oil. The US Government had originally proposed fining Koch $71 million to $214 million in penalties for violations of the Clean Water Act by those spills.
--Koch's Sterling butane pipeline had a leak in Lively, Texas, on August 24, 1996. Two TEENAGERS on the way to report the leak drove into the unseen butane cloud, and WERE KILLED when the gas exploded and burned. The National Transportation Safety Board concluded that severe external pipeline corrosion was the cause of the failure, and recommended to Koch to improve corrosion evaluation procedures. Although Koch distributed pamphlets about safety around the pipelines, they failed to maintain an up-to-date mailing list. Only five out of 45 residences in the area of the accident had received pamphlets. The families of the dead had not.
--In March 1999, Koch Petroleum Group, a Koch Industries subsidiary, plead guilty to charges that it had negligently dumped hundreds of thousands of gallons of aviation fuel into wetlands near the Mississippi River from its refinery in Rosemount, Minnesota, and that it had also illegally dumped a million gallons of high-ammonia wastewater onto the ground and into the Mississippi River. Koch Petroleum paid the Dakota County Park System a $6 million fine and $2 million in remediation costs, and was ordered to serve three years of probation.
--In 2006, Koch Industries’ subsidiary Flint Hill Resources was fined nearly $16,000 by the EPA for 10 separate violations of the Clean Air Actat its Alaska oil refinery facilities, and required to spend another $60,000 on safety equipment needed to help prevent future violations.
--In 2007, Koch Nitrogen's plant in Enid, Oklahoma, was listed as the third highest company releasing toxic chemicals in Oklahoma, according to the EPA, ranking behind Perma-Fix Environmental Services in Tulsa and Weyerhaeuser Co. in Valliant. The facility produces about 10% of the US national production of anhydrous ammonia, as well as urea and UAN..

--In 2010, Koch Industries was ranked 10th on the list of top US corporate air polluters, the "Toxic 100 Air Polluters", by the Political Economic Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst

(wikipedia)

Debt, These people are already DEEPLY ENTRENCHED in our government. Once they own the majority, and I believe that will be as soon as the Tea Party becomes the majority, the USA as we know it will be swallowed up by them.

If you have read most of what I have written about a few of my personal experiences and helping the less fortunate among us, there is absolutely no way you could conclude that I would support a "nannie state". But I will give you this, it's a very catchy little phrase. :)

Debt: "A person who is a politician and has no medical experience..."

Ah, Debt, for the second time today, I must say you are exactly right. She IS a seasoned politician. Now that leads to my question to you...

As the Secretary of Health and Human Services for the United State Government and ranked by Forbes Magazine

"In 2009, Forbes named Sebelius the 57th most powerful woman in the world
"In 2010, Forbes named Sebelius the 23rd most powerful woman in the world
"In 2011, Forbes named Sebelius the 13th most powerful woman in the world"

Do you think that if this woman were to pick up a phone and ask for an audience with any of the leading llergist-Immunologists, Cardiologists, Dermatologists, Endocrinologists, ENT Specialists, Family Medicine, Gastroenterologists, Gynecologic Oncologists, Internists, Neurologists, Neurosurgeons, Ophthalmologists, Orthopedic Surgeons, Orthopedists, Pediatricians, etc., she would be told 'no, I don't have time to discuss this with you'?

I don't have to know the ingredients in a cake mix to open a box, read the instructions in order to produce a perfectly beautiful cake! Do you?

Yea, Katybug, I have that problem too.

Debt, a little more info re Sebelius for your reading pleasure...

Sebelius was first elected governor of Kansas in 2002. She was re-elected in 2006.

Sebelius defeated Republican Tim Shallenburger in the 2002 election by a vote of 53 percent-45 percent.[9] ...in January 2006 was tied for 20th most popular governor in the country.[10] (Not a shabby position to be in, huh?)

On May 26, 2006, Sebelius formally announced her candidacy for re-election. Four days later, Mark Parkinson, former chair of the Kansas Republican Party, switched his party affiliation to Democrat; the following day Sebelius announced that Parkinson would be her running mate for Lieutenant Governor. Parkinson had previously served in the state House during 1991–1992 and the Senate during 1993–1997. Parkinson was viewed as a pro-business moderate who strongly supported public education. This was somewhat reminiscent of the fact that John Moore had also been a Republican, before switching just days prior to joining Sebelius as her running mate.[11] She was challenged by Republican Kansas State Senator Jim Barnett. A September 1 Rasmussen poll showed Sebelius with an 11% lead over Barnett.[12] Other polls gave Sebelius as much as a 20% lead. As of 2004, 50% of Kansas voters were registered Republicans, compared to 27% as registered Democrats.[13] Sebelius, nevertheless, won a landslide re-election – with 57.8% – of the vote to Barnett's 40.5%. Because of Kansas's term limits law, her second term as Governor was her last.
(wikipedia)

Interesting read whether you agree or not....

The best predictor of party preference wasn’t any of the socio-demographic characteristics—it was the personality trait “openness,” which in the big five model means curious, original, intellectual, creative, and open to new ideas. Openness was tightly linked with voting for the liberal party. The second-best predictor was the personality trait “conscientiousness”—organized, systematic, punctual, achievement-oriented, and dependable. Those high in conscientiousness were likely to vote for the conservative party.

http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2011/08/18/4462041-liberals-conservatives-and-personality-traits

As my good friend Barbara Anderson (founder of 'Citizens for Limited Taxation' in Massachusetts) put in in a column in the Salem (MA) News today:

"(Romney) has shown his willingness to take a chance on the American voters, to give them credit for understanding the problem and being ready to address it. This team will put the economy ahead of everything else, because without the economic fix, everything else is in jeopardy. America can deal with war, terrorism, disease control, climate concerns, energy concerns, all the big issues, only if America is solvent; no country can thrive under overwhelming debt any more than we individuals can.


Honestly, folks. Read that passage again.

Everything else -- including the silly ad hominems -- is smoke and mirrors.

People can read that passage all they want, but the important question is, HOW will Mr. Romney attempt to "fix" the economy----assuming he even can? On the backs of the middle class and those in poverty while giving more to the very wealthy? It sure appears that way.

Calling the previous comments that raise serious questions and concerns "silly ad hominems" is the "smoke and mirrors" to me, Mr. Flathers.

I guess the only way Romney is going to fix the economy song98 is on the backs of the poor, the middle class and the wealthy. According to Obama we don't do anything on our own. So I suppose when Romney is elected you and I will be working together to help him fix the mess. Won't that be fun?

The next time someone tells you that Obama is destroying the economy……remind them that the stock market is close to an all-time high and that corporate profits are as well.

When they tell you that that hasn’t helped them any, remind them they’ve just admitted trickle-down economics doesn’t work.”

You did not get what I said quite right, teatime, as you got the part about Romney's policies--step on the backs of the middle class and those in poverty---correct, but the part you left out was that in addition Romney WILL give all the breaks to the very wealthy.

I have heard the saying "money can buy anything" so with the Supreme Court's ruling on "Citizens United", right-wing billionairs like the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson and others can now legally hand out unlimited, huge sums of money to groups that openly campaign for Romney knowing their "dark money" donations will be kept entirely secret so Romney just may "win" (buy) the election. Of course, when right-wing billionairs spend millions and millions of their own money to try and buy a presidency---Romney's----you better believe they will expect a big pay-off on their investment and that does not say anything positive about the impact on the rest of us in this country if Romney becomes president.

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

President Obama Took Steps to Strengthen the Middle Class and Families, and to Fight Poverty

· Worked to provide affordable, high-quality childcare to working families.

· Cracked down on companies that were previously denying sick pay, vacation and health insurance, and Social Security and Medicare tax payments through abuse of the employee classification of independent contractor.

· Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, cut taxes for 95% of America's working families.

· Tax rates for average working families are the lowest since 1950.

· Extended and fully funded the patch for the Alternative Minimum Tax for 10 years.

· Extended discounted COBRA health coverage for the unemployed from 9 months to 15 months, and he’s extended unemployment benefits several times.

· Provided a $20 billion increase for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps).

· Signed an Executive Order that established the White House Office of Urban Affairs.

REFERENCE SOURCES PROVIDED UPON REQUEST

Dan, You may send this to your friend so she can spin this as well.

'Red State Socialism' graphic says GOP-leaning states get lion's share of federal dollars.

The chart suggests that Republicans are hypocritical for bashing the federal government and federal spending, when Republican-leaning states are reaping the lion’s share of federal dollars....States that send more money to the federal government than they receive in federal spending are on the left, and they are primarily blue (or Democratic) states. The table on the right shows states that receive more in federal spending than they contribute in taxes. This table is predominantly red (or Republican). The graphic says: "Of the 32 states which receive more than they contribute, 27 states (84%) are REPUBLICAN. Of the 18 states which contribute more than they receive, 14 states (78%) are DEMOCRATIC."

The above info is in http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/26/blog-posting/red-state-socialism-graphic-says-gop-leaning-state/ ; DOI, the chart uses 2005 data that was published in 2007.

Politifact ruling

The graphic’s data uses data from the 2004 election rather than 2008, and the figures on taxes and spending date back to 2005. There are fewer states that would be labeled Republican based on the 2008 election, and there’s a strong likelihood that tax and spending data would have changed as well. Because of this likelihood, we downgrade the accuracy of this generally accurate chart to Mostly True.

DF writes: "my good friend Barbara Anderson (founder of Citizens for Limited Taxation in Massachusetts)" Since she refers to GROVER NORQUIST in some of her articles...I was curious as to the connection.

Barbara Anderson (executive director), Chip Ford (director of operations), and associate director Chip Faulkner, host and organizer of the America for Tax Reform (ATR) Center - Right coalition meetings in MA.

Organizations listed on the website include ATR, Heritage Foundation (part of the Koch Foundation), Cato Institute (founder Charles Koch with two other men.) 2011 Global Go To Think Tank Index describes Cato as the 6th most influential US based think tank, ranking 3rd in Economic Policy and 2nd in Social Policy. The Reason Foundation (an American libertarian research organization; David H. Koch, Koch Industries sits on the Board of Trustees and is one of two of its largest donors).

On the national level, CLT is a member of the "Leave Us Alone Coalition" of the WDC-based ATR . CLT is also a member of the WDC-based National Taxpayers Union; Anderson serves on the NTU board of directors. CLT also is a member of the World Taxpayers Associations.

Very interesting how all of these entities tie in with Grover Norquist who either started or worked in the organization; Koch's involved in most by sitting on the board and/or heavily funding.

1. Leave Us Alone Coalition - an idea popularized by conservative/libertarian activist GROVER NORQUIST
2. Americans for Tax Reform - Born shortly after Bill Clinton's 1992 election, Founder and president Grover Norquist began a site for a weekly, off-the-record get-together of conservatives to coordinate activities and strategy. The "Wednesday Meeting" of the Leave Us Alone Coalition(1) soon became an important hub of conservative political organizing. Participants each week include Republican congressional leaders, right-leaning think tanks, conservative advocacy groups and K Street lobbyists. George W. Bush began sending a representative to the Wednesday Meeting even before he formally announced his candidacy for president in 1999, and continued to send representatives after his election in 2000.[16] ATR has helped to establish regular meetings for conservatives nationwide, modeled after the Wednesday meetings in Washington, with the goal of creating a nationwide network of conservative activists. There are now meetings in 48 states[17] and more internationally, with meetings in Canada, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, France, Italy, Japan, Spain, and the United Kingdom.[18] The significance of the Wednesday meeting has influenced liberals and Democrats to organize similar meetings to coordinate activities about their shared agenda. In 2001, USA Today reported that Rep. Rosa DeLauro initiated such a meeting at the urging of then-House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt, even holding it on a Wednesday.
3. National Taxpayers Union - In 1978-1982, Grover Norquist was the executive director.
4. World Taxpayers Associations - 58 members association from 41 countries on 6 continents of which Grover Norquist, Tom Right, and Barbara Anderson are members.
5. The "K" Street project - Launched in 1995 by Republican strategist Grover Norquist and then-House majority whip Tom DeLay. GWBush began sending a representative to the Wednesday Meeting even before he formally announced his candidacy for president in 1999, and continued to send representatives after his election in 2000.
To recall, “I had absolutely nothing to do -- never met, never talked, never coordinated, never did anything -- with Grover Norquist and the, quote, K Street Project.” -- Rick Santorum, during an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Jan. 25, 2006
“I have never called anybody or talked to anyone to try to get anybody a position on K Street with one exception, and that is if someone from my office is applying for a job and an employer calls me.” -- Santorum, in an interview with The Washington Times, Jan. 30, 2006 http://crooksandliars.com/2006/01/27/santorum-and-norquist-video-thank-you-grover/

GROVER NORQUIST is also member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR),an American nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization, publisher, and think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international affairs. In 2004, at age 48, he married a Palestinian Muslim[32] named Samah Alrayyes,[52][53] a Kuwaiti PR specialist who was formerly a director of the Islamic Free Market Institute and specialist at the Bureau of Legislative and Public Affairs at United States Agency for International Development (USAID).[54][55] The couple has two children adopted from abroad.[56] Norquist is said to live a modest lifestyle. According to friend and former roommate John Fund, Norquist's devotion to his political causes is "monk-like" and comparable to that of Ralph Nader.[9] Fund collaborated with Rush Limbaugh on a 1992 book. The Way Things Ought to Be,[3][4] transcribing it from tape and editing it. In May 2006, GWBush nominated Grover's brother David as Chief Financial Officer for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

It's a small world after all.

Really interesting findings, Jane, and how right you are that it is a small world after all. Thank you for putting some light on this.

Reading what is actually behind the "innocent" sounding passage Dan Flather has quoted from Barbara Anderson and her group Citizens for Limited Taxation in Massachusettes reminds me of a cesspool that at first glance looks innocuous but once the cover is taken off, the true maloderous nature is exposed. It goes right back to the controversial Norquist and billionair Koch brothers and others like them who are pulling the strings and hiding behind the screen while they themselves stand to benefit personally (with the rest of us in this country paying the price) from Romney being president and Republicans in control of Congress.

http://www.salemnews.com/opinion/x192352012/Barbara-Anderson-EBT-abuse-is-no-myth

Mr. Flathers, This opinion piece your friend, Barbara Anderson, wrote was certainly entertaining but TOTALLY dishonest. She correctly states that Snopes.com did not address the issue of EBT-ATM cards; so that blip in her opinion piece is truthful! Too bad she didn't pop over to Factcheck.org-- had she done so -- she wouldn't have been able to write such an absurd piece but I certain she understand how welfare works; she's just hoping, like Romney, she can sucker the stupid citizens into believing their lies to be truth.

Newt Gingrich claims that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” He’s wrong. More were added under Bush than under Obama, according to the most recent figures. We asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001. And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that. And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama’s time in office than during Bush’s. The number getting food stamps declined by 43,528 in October. And the economy has improved since then. Update, Feb. 5: Revised USDA data released in February showed the downward trend continued for a second straight month in November, when the number of persons getting food stamps was 134,418 fewer than it had been at the peak.

The economic downturn began in December 2007. In the 12 months before Obama was sworn in, 4.4 million were added to the rolls, triple the 1.4 million added in 2007....current eligibility standards are unchanged from what they were before Obama took office, USDA officials say REPEAT current eligibility standards are unchanged from what they were before Obama took office.

Officials say that another factor is that Americans today are less reluctant to accept aid than before. Of those whose income was low enough to qualify, only 54 percent actually signed up in 2002, but that rose steadily to 72 percent by fiscal 2009 (1 Oct 2008-30=Sep 2009), the latest USDA figures show (See Table 2).

USDA researchers said the jump in the participation rate happened because of actions by state governments. In a report released in August 2011, the Office of Research and Analysis said:

"USDA: States have increased outreach to low-income households, implemented program simplifications, and streamlined application processes to make it easier for eligible individuals to apply for and receive SNAP [food stamp] benefits. Most States also have reduced the amount of information that recipients must report during their certification period to maintain their eligibility and benefit levels, making it easier for low-income households to participate."

Another reason may be that “food stamps” no longer exist as paper coupons. Instead, beneficiaries now receive plastic debit cards, known as “Electronic Benefit Transfer” or EBT cards, which look pretty much like an ordinary credit card when used in a supermarket checkout line.

EBT cards have been used in all states since 2004, according to the USDA website. The change to plastic cards was done both to reduce the possibility of fraud, and also to reduce the stigma felt by beneficiaries, and may account for some of the increase in participation.

In fact, the program is no longer officially called the “food stamp” program. Since 2008, it has been the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP for short. REPEAT Since 2008, ....

Who Gets Food Stamps?

The most recent Department of Agriculture report on the general characteristics of the SNAP program’s beneficiaries says that in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2010:

47 percent of beneficiaries were children under age 18.
8 percent were age 60 or older.
41 percent lived in a household with earnings from a job — the so-called “working poor.”
The average household received a monthly benefit of $287.
36 percent were white (non-Hispanic), 22 percent were African American (non-Hispanic) and 10 percent were Hispanic (Table A.21).

Updated February

49 percent were white (non-Hispanic); 26 percent were black or African American; and 20 percent were Hispanic (of any race).
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/newts-faulty-food-stamp-claim/

"The New Yorker makes a case that a pair of wealthy brothers is the force behind the Tea Party movement. Here, 5 key assertions from a new article"

http://theweek.com/article/index/206405/the-billionaire-koch-brothers-tea-party-puppetmasters

As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias.

People with lower cognitive abilities also had less contact with people of other races.

"This finding is consistent with recent research demonstrating that intergroup contact is mentally challenging and cognitively draining, and consistent with findings that contact reduces prejudice," said Hodson, who along with his colleagues published these results online Jan. 5 in the journal Psychological Science.

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html

Jane, you and Buck Snort make a good pair. You find everything wrong with the Republicans while Buck Snort finds everything good about the Democrats. You haven't had any response lately, so I guess you guys are just entering yourselves now.

As suspected, low intelligence in childhood corresponded with racism in adulthood. But the factor that explained the relationship between these two variables was political: When researchers included social conservatism in the analysis, those ideologies accounted for much of the link between brains and bias.
People with lower cognitive abilities also had less contact with people of other races.
"This finding is consistent with recent research demonstrating that intergroup contact is mentally challenging and cognitively draining, and consistent with findings that contact reduces prejudice," said Hodson, who along with his colleagues published these results online Jan. 5 in the journal Psychological Science.
http://www.livescience.com/18132-intelligence-social-conservatism-racism.html


I believe TeaTime finds it impossible to stop being one of those dullards who finished in the bottom half of his school class every year he attended. The shallowness of his thinking is always self-evident.

In comment after comment TeaTime has yet to offer anything informative to the ongoing conversations. However, TeaTime has offered an endless repetition of Tea Party boiler-plate blather as the foundation for his vilification of everybody not like him for not participating in his brand of Tea Party insanity.

It is hardly possible to read any of TeaTime’s comments that imply he is possibly intelligent, arrestingly handsome, or someone to enjoy over for dinner. No disrespect, of course, but I'd be the first to agree that it can't be his writings that draws the supporting crowds.

TeaTime should say something only when it improves the silence.

So I guess you guys are just entertaining yourselves now. That reads better. Sorry my insult was messed up earlier.

Dullards......? Dullards......? Nope, don't know none of them Dullards. Ain't kin to none of them Dullards either. Come to think of it.... Knew some of them Pallards years ago..... Sounds sort of like Dullard don't it....? Don't know that they finish school all the way. Would maybe knowing them Pallards help you a mite Tess? Cause I just.... don't.... know.... any of them Dullards.

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

President Obama Refocused the Federal Government on Education

· Repeatedly increased funding for student financial aid, and at the same time cut the banks completely out of the process.

· Reformed student loan program, to make it possible for students to refinance at a lower rate.

· Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, invested heavily in elementary, secondary and post-secondary education.

· Created the Race to the Top program, which encouraged states to come up with effective school reforms and rewards the best of them.

· Oversaw major expansion of broadband availability in K-12 schools nationwide

· Oversaw major expansion in school construction.

· Also through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he put $5 billion into early education, including Head Start.

· Signed the Democratic-sponsored Post-9/11 GI Bill, also known as GI Bill 2.0

· Oversaw expansion of the Pell Grants program, to expand opportunity for low-income students to go to college.

· Along with Democratic Congress, passed and signed Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which provided an extra $12.2 billion in funds.

REFERENCE SOURCES PROVIDED UPON REQUEST

Buck Snort, Sounds like you're getting most of your information from hhp://pleasecutthebucksnortcrap.waste/of/our/time/if-you-believe-this-you're-a-big-brother-commie-1984.html


http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

President Obama’s Administration Treated Soldiers and Veterans with Respect That Was Missing Previously

· Along with Congressional Democrats, not only reauthorized families of fallen soldiers to be able to visit when the body arrives at Dover AFB, but also provided funding for it. Ended the media blackout on coverage of the return of fallen soldiers.

· Funded Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with an extra $1.4 billion to improve veterans’ services.

· Provided active combat troops with better body armor.

· Created Joint Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record program for military personnel, in order to improve the quality of their medical care.

· Put an end to the Bush-era stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan beyond their enlistment date.

· Along with Congressional Democrats, supported and signed Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act, which made more money available to enable better medical care for veterans.

· Along with Congressional Democrats, ushered through largest spending increase in 30 years for Department of Veterans Affairs, with money to go to improved medical facilities, and to assist states in acquiring or constructing state nursing homes and extended care facilities.

· Created the Green Vet Initiative, which provided special funding to the Labor Department to provide veterans with training in green jobs.

· Initiated and signed a recruitment and employment plan to get more veterans into government jobs.

· Oversaw a $4.6 billion expansion of the Veterans Administration budget to pay for more mental health professionals.

· Signed the Military Spouses Residency Relief Act, which ensures that spouses of military personnel who are forced to move because their spouse is posted for military duty will be able to avoid state taxes in their temporary residence.

REFERENCE SOURCES PROVIDED UPON REQUEST



Leave a comment

What do you think?

(You may use HTML tags for style)

Comments

Comments that are posted on nvdaily.com represent the opinion of the commenter and not the Northern Virginia Daily/nvdaily.com. If you feel that a comment is objectionable, please click on the Report Abuse link above. We will review the reported comment and make a decision on deleting it if we feel that it contains inappropriate content.











top-jobs-logo.jpg



Opinion Sections

Carolyn Long Editorial Cartoons Editorials Jules Witcover Leonard Pitts Jr. Letters to the Editor Linda Ash Mary Sanchez Paul Greenberg Reader Commentary






News | Sports | Business | Lifestyle | Obituaries | Opinion | Multimedia| Entertainment | Homes | Classifieds
Contact Us | NIE | Place a Classified | Privacy Policy | Subscribe

Copyright © The Northern Virginia Daily | nvdaily.com | 152 N. Holliday St., Strasburg, Va. 22657 | (800) 296-5137

nvdaily.com
Best Small Daily Newspaper in Virginia!


nvdaily.com | seeshenandoah.com